Category: Family

Mcpherson v McPherson: PC 16 Dec 1935

(Alberta) The Board considered the degree of publicity appropriate at the trial of divorce suits. The undefended divorce of a well-known politician was conducted not in a court room (though there were empty courts available) but in the Judges’ Library. There was direct public access to the courts, but not to the Judges’ Library. It can be approached from the same corridor which encircles the building and provides direct access to the courts, but only through a double swing door, one side of which is always fixed, and on which there is a brass plate with the word ‘Private’ in black letters on it. Through this swing door was another corridor, on the opposite wall of which was a further door to the Judges’ Library. Both this internal door and the free swinging half of the double doors were in fact open during this hearing.
Held: ‘even although it emerges in the last analysis that their actual exclusion resulted only from that word ‘Private’ on the outer door, the learned judge on this occasion, albeit unconsciously, was, their Lordships think, denying his court to the public in breach of their right to be present, a right thus expressed by Lord Halsbury in Scott -v- Scott: ‘every court of justice is open to every subject of the King’.’ (that rule is of course subject to all the strictly defined exceptions referred to above).’

Citations:

[1935] UKPC 88, [1936] AC 177

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – Storer v British Gas plc CA 25-Feb-2000
An industrial tribunal hearing conducted behind the locked doors of the chairman’s office was not held in public, even if, in fact, no member of the public was prevented from attending. The obligation to sit in public was fundamental, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.426345

Crossley v Crossley: CA 19 Dec 2007

The parties had entered into a pre-nuptial agreement. On the ancillary relief proceedings on divorce, the husband sought to have the agreement taken into account by the court. It decided that the wife should give reasons why she considered that the agreement was made without proper disclosure and why the pre-nuptial agreement should not be relied upon, and that otherwise neither party should have to produce the standard replies to questionnaires required by the rules. Both parties had very substantial assets. Bennett J had refused to allow a wife’s claim to go to trial in the face of the clear provisions of the pre-nuptial agreement.
Held: The wife’s appeal failed. The Rules were not intended to work as a straitjacket precluding sensible case management.
Thorpe LJ pointed to the fact that the marriage was a childless marriage of very short duration, for a substantial portion of which the parties were living apart; the marriage was between mature adults, both of whom had been previously married and divorced; both parties had very substantial independent wealth; the ante-nuptial agreement provided for the retention by each of the parties of their separate properties and division of joint property (of which there was in fact none). He accepted that the combination of these factors gave rise to a very strong case that a possible result of the section 25 exercise would be that the wife receives no further financial award, and concluded: ‘All these cases are fact dependent and this is a quite exceptional case on its facts, but if ever there is to be a paradigm case in which the court will look to the prenuptial agreement as not simply one of the peripheral factors in the case but as a factor of magnetic importance, it seems to me that this is just such a case.’

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Keene LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

Times 03-Jan-2008, [2007] EWCA Civ 1491, [2008] Fam Law 395, [2008] 1 FLR 1467, [2008] 1 FCR 323

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Matrimonial Cause Act 1973 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Parris v Williams CA 23-Oct-2008
The parties had been business partners, but the business failed, and Mr Williams was made bankrupt. Mr Parris was offered a chance to purchase two apartments, and did so in his own name. Mr Williams asserted an interest, saying that it had been a . .
Cited – Radmacher v Granatino CA 2-Jul-2009
Husband and wife, neither English, had married in England. Beforehand they had signed a prenuptial agreement in Germany agreeing that neither should claim against the other on divorce. The wife appealed against an order to pay a lump sum to the . .
Cited – Radmacher (Formerly Granatino) v Granatino SC 20-Oct-2010
The parties, from Germany and France married and lived at first in England. They had signed a pre-nuptial agreement in Germany which would have been valid in either country of origin. H now appealed against a judgment which bound him to it, . .
Cited – Wyatt v Vince SC 11-Mar-2015
Long delayed ancillary relief application proceeds
The parties had divorced some 22 years before, but no ancillary relief order had been made to satisfy the application outlined in the petition. The parties when together had lived in relative poverty, but H had subsequently become wealthy. W applied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263546

O’Neill v O’Neill: CA 12 Mar 1975

W appealed from rejection of her petition for divorce. The Judge held that the behaviour proved was no more than a wife could reasonably be expected to put up with, and he dismissed the petition.

Judges:

Cairns, Roskill, Browne LJJ

Citations:

[1975] EWCA Civ 1, [1975] 3 All ER 289, [1975] 1 WLR 1118

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 1(2)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Welfare v Welfare FD 12-Oct-1977
Bush J heard a defended divorce petion sand said: ‘Conduct of a respondent could not be looked at in isolation but had to be viewed in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, including the degree of provocation.’ He continued to adopt the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Owens v Owens CA 24-Mar-2017
Unreasonable Behaviour must reach criteria
W appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant a decree of divorce. He found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, but did not find that H had behaved iin such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with H.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262716

Merritt v Merritt: CA 27 Apr 1970

The parties had setted an arramngement for the house on splitting up. Following the agreement, she repaid the mortgage over time, and then requested the conveyance of the house under the agreement. She now appealed from an order refusing the transfer into her name.
Held: The appeal failed. Agreements between husband and wide are not generally intended to have legal effect, but ‘It is altogether different when the parties are not living in amity but are separated, or about to separate. They then bargain keenly. They do not rely on honourable understandings. They want everything cut and dried. It may safely be presumed that they intend to create legal relations.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Widgery, Karminski LJJ

Citations:

[1970] EWCA Civ 6, [1970] 2 All ER 760, [1970] 1 WLR 1211

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Land, Family

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262771

Major Arthur Forbes, Now Taking The Name of Maitland v William Gordon, Trustee of Katherine and Ann Maitland: HL 24 Mar 1760

Delivery of Deed – Prescription – Confusio – Bona Fide Consumption – Interest of Debt.-
Circumstances in which held, 1 st That debts acquired by a husband affecting his wife’s estate, do not prescribe during marriage; and that prescription does not run against these bonds during the minority of the person for whose behoof they were purchased. 2 nd, That a bond of provision granted by a brother to two sisters, in addition to their family provisions, was to be presumed in law delivered of its date, unless the contrary be proved, although it had not been delivered to them, and there was no clause dispensing with delivery. 3 d, That this bond of provision was onerous to the full extent. 4 th That the sums in said bonds were not deminished by the sisters having been alimented by their mother, while in family with her. 5 th, That the rents of the estate during Katherine’s possession were bona fide percepti et consumpti by her, and she not accountable therefor; But, 6 th, That she was not liable for behaviour as heir, but that the appellant was liable for principal and interest of the sister’s bonds, under the deduction of two-thirds of the annual rents, from their mother’s death to their brother’s death, in consideration of the aliment and necessaries furnished them by their brother.

Citations:

[1760] UKHL 2 – Paton – 43

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Family

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.558284

Hipgrave and Another v Jones: QBD 15 Dec 2004

The defendant appealed an order under the 1997 Act saying that it was akin to an order made under the 1998 Act where proof was required to a criminal standard, and that the court had applied only the civil standard.
Held: There was a real distinction between the two Acts. The civil standard of proof was sufficient to protect a defendant to harassment proceedings.
Standard of proof on applying for injunction under the 1997 Act.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

Times 11-Jan-2005, [2004] EWHC 2901 (QB), [2005] Fam Law 453, [2005] ACD 67, [2005] 2 FLR 174

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 3, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – KD v Chief Constable of Hampshire QBD 23-Nov-2005
The claimant’s daughter had made a complaint of rape. She alleged that she was sexually harassed by the investigating police officer, and sought damages also from the defendant, his employer. The officer denied that anything improper or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Torts – Other, Family

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.347401

Thoday v Thoday: CA 1964

The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first species, which I will call ’cause of action estoppel,’ is that which prevents a party to an action from asserting or denying, as against the other party, the existence of a particular cause of action, the non-existence or existence of which has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in previous litigation between the same parties. If the cause of action was determined to exist, ie, judgment was given upon it, it is said to be merged in the judgment, or, for those who prefer Latin, transit in rem judicatam. If it was determined not to exist, the unsuccessful plaintiff can no longer assert that it does; he is estopped per rem judicatam. This is simply an application of the rule of public policy expressed in the Latin maxim ‘Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa.’ In this application of the maxim ‘causa’ bears its literal Latin meaning. The second species, which I will call ‘issue estoppel’, is an extension of the same rule of public policy. There are many causes of action which can only be established by proving that two or more different conditions are fulfilled. Such causes of action involve as many separate issues between the parties as there are conditions to be fulfilled by the plaintiff in order to establish his cause of action; and there may be cases where the fulfilment of an identical condition is a requirement common to two or more different causes of action. If in litigation upon one such cause of action any of such separate issues as to whether a particular condition has been fulfilled is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, either upon evidence or upon admission by a party to the litigation, neither party can, in subsequent litigation between one another upon any cause of action which depends upon the fulfilment of the identical condition, assert that the condition was fulfilled if the court in the first litigation determined that it was not, or deny that it was fulfilled if the court in the first litigation determined that it was.’

Judges:

Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1964] P 181, [1964] 1 All ER 341, [1964] 2 WLR 371, [1963] EWCA Civ 1219-1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
Cited – Blackburn Chemicals Ltd v Bim Kemi Ab CA 10-Nov-2004
The parties entered into exclusive cross marketing agreements. The defendant resisted enforcement of the contract saying it was void under European law, being contrary to Article 81. The parties were alleged to have agreed to make cross purchases. . .
Cited – Hormel Foods Corporation v Antilles Landscape Investments NV ChD 24-Jan-2005
The claimant had alread challenged the validity of the defendant’s registered trade mark, but sought to do so now on grounds which could have been advanced in the earlier case. The claimant owned the trade mark ‘SPAM’ for canned meats, and the . .
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Cited – Special Effects Ltd v L’Oreal Sa and Another CA 12-Jan-2007
The defendants had opposed the grant of the trade mark which they were now accused of infringing. The claimants said that having failed at the opposition stage, they were now estopped from challenging the validity of the mark.
Held: It was not . .
Cited – Fraser v HLMAD Limited CA 15-Jun-2006
The claimant had been dismissed as chief executive. He had made a claim in the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, but reserved the right to make further claims. The defendant argued that he was not estopped from pursuing those claims.
Cited – Campbell v Leeds United Association Football Misc 3-Apr-2009
The claimant sought damages for psychiatric injury suffered when working for the defendant who replied that the matter had already been litigated in her claims in the Employment Tribunal, and that a cause of action estoppel applied.
Held: The . .
Cited – Schellenberg v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 2000
The claimant had settled defamation actions against the Guardian and the Sunday Times on disadvantageous terms, when it seemed likely that he was about to lose. He then pressed on with this almost identical action against the BBC.
Held: A . .
Cited – Bank of Scotland v Hussain and Another ChD 5-Nov-2010
The second defendant had, under the undue influence of the first defendant sold him her house at an undervalue. She also asserted non est factum. He then charged it to the claimant. The court was asked which innocent party should prevail. She said . .
Cited – Coke-Wallis, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales SC 19-Jan-2011
The appellant chartered accountant had been convicted in Jersey after removing documents from his offices relating to a disputed trust and in breach of an order from his professional institute. The court now considered the relevance and application . .
Cited – Sarwar v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (Rev 1) ChD 27-Jul-2011
The claimant appealed against a finding of indebtedness to the bank. He had said at trial that the bank had been charging interest at 25%. The bank denied this, but after trial it became clear that he had been correct. The bank argued for abuse of . .
Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .
Cited – DN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Feb-2020
Challenge to imprisonment pending deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘The giving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Family

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.188233

Mubarak v Mubarak and others: CA 17 Jul 2007

Application for leave to appeal against ancillary relief order – protracted proceedings.

Judges:

Wall LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 879

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mubarak v Mubarak FD 30-Nov-2000
In ancillary relief proceedings, where a respondent company director conceded that the assets and income of a company could be treated as his own, it could be proper to draw aside the veil of incorporation. Nevertheless the court should be careful . .
See Also – Mubarak v Mubarak CA 2001
A judgment summons, issued was issued by the wife to enforce a lump sum order made against her husband in their divorce proceedings. The judge had performed his statutory duty which included having to satisfy himself under s. 25 of the 1973 Act of . .
See Also – Mubarak v Mubarik 2003
The court was asked as to whether the expression ‘in the possession of’ in RSC Ord.48 extended to documents not physically held by the judgment debtor but to sight of which he has a clear and enforceable right.
Held: The expression did so . .
See Also – Mubarak v Mubarik FD 9-May-2006
. .
See Also – Mubarak v Mubarik and others FD 12-Jan-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.259312

Rogan v Rogan: FD 21 Sep 2018

A former wife applied to commit her former husband to prison for significant non-payment and arrears of spousal maintenance following their divorce.

Judges:

Holman J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2512 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.630610

Abbott v Abbott: PC 26 Jul 2007

(Antigua and Barbuda) The parties disputed the division of the family assets after a divorce. The family home was registered in the sole name of the husband. There being no provision for property adjustment, the court had to decide the division on the ordinary legal rules.
Baroness Hale said: ‘The search is to ascertain the parties’ shared intentions, actual, inferred or imputed, with respect to the property in the light of their whole course of conduct in relation to it.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

Citations:

[2009] WTLR 1675, [2008] 1 FLR 1451, [2007] UKPC 53, [2007] 2 All ER 432

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Applied – Stack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v Kernott SC 9-Nov-2011
Unmarried Couple – Equal division displaced
The parties were unmarried but had lived together. They now disputed the shares in which they had held the family home. It had been bought in joint names, but after Mr Kernott (K) left in 1993, Ms Jones (J) had made all payments on the house. She . .
Cited – Singh v Singh and Another ChD 8-Apr-2014
The parties disputed ownership of various valuable properties. The father asserted that they were held under trusts following the Mitakshara Hindu code, under a common intention constructive trust. The son said that properties held in his own name . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Family

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258516

Avis v Turner and Another: CA 19 Jul 2007

The court was asked as to the powers of the court on an application by a trustee in bankruptcy for an order for the sale of a former matrimonial home in which the bankrupt had an interest in circumstances where there is an existing order, made in matrimonial proceedings between the bankrupt and his former wife, that sale be postponed until the happening of specified events which have not yet occurred.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 748

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Insolvency

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258298

FS v JS: FD 10 Nov 2006

Ancillary relief.
Held: The circumstances, in particular the bringing of very substantial assets to the marriage by the husband were sufficient to justify an award departing from equality in his favour (60%/40%).

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2793 (Fam), [2007] 1 FLR 1496, [2007] Fam Law 106

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – S v AG (Financial Remedy: Lottery Prize) FD 14-Oct-2011
The court considered how to treat a lottery win of andpound;500,000 in the context of an ancillary relief application on a divorce.
Held: The answers in such cases must be fact specific. ‘In the application of the sharing principle (as opposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258180

Lauder v Lauder: FD 21 Mar 2007

W appealed against the variation of periodical payments order.
Held: The court will not generally expect W to apply inherited capital (as opposed to the income generated therefrom) to the meeting of her maintenance needs.

Judges:

Baron J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1227 (Fam), [2008] 3 FCR 468, [2007] 2 FLR 802

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cordle v Cordle CA 15-Nov-2001
The former practice in ancillary relief applications where a circuit judge hearing an appeal from a district judge could admit new evidence and hear the case de novo should not survive the new rules, and should cease. An appeal to the circuit judge . .

Cited by:

Cited – Vaughan v Vaughan CA 31-Mar-2010
H had been paying maintenance to W for many years after the divorce. W now appealed against an order revoking the arrangement without providing a capital sum to replace it. H’s health had declined, and also his earnings.
Held: W’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253471

Charman v Charman (No 4): CA 24 May 2007

The court considered what property should be considered in an ancillary relief claim on divorce, and said: ‘To what property does the sharing principle apply? The answer might well have been that it applies only to matrimonial property, namely the property of the parties generated during the marriage otherwise than by external donation; and the consequence would have been that non-matrimonial property would have fallen for redistribution by reference only to one of the two other principles of need and compensation to which we refer in para 68, below. Such an answer might better have reflected the origins of the principle in the parties’ contributions to the welfare of the family; and it would have been more consonant with the references of Baroness Hale of Richmond in Miller . . to ‘sharing . . the fruits of the matrimonial partnership’ and to ‘the approach of roughly equal sharing of partnership assets’. We consider, however, the answer to be that, subject to the exceptions identified in Miller to which we turn . . below, the principle applies to all the parties’ property but, to the extent that their property is non-matrimonial, there is likely to be better reason for departure from equality. It is clear that both in White at p 605 F-G and p 989 respectively, and in Miller, at paras 24 and 26, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead approached the matter in that way; and there was no express suggestion in Miller, even on the part of Baroness Hale of Richmond, that in White the House had set too widely the general application of what was then a yardstick.’
‘The notion of a special contribution to the welfare of the family will not successfully have been purged of inherent gender discrimination unless it is accepted that such a contribution can, in principle, take a number of forms; that it can be non-financial as well as financial; and that it can thus be made by a party whose role has been exclusively that of a home-maker. Nevertheless in practice . . the claim to have made a special contribution seems so far to have arisen only in cases of substantial wealth generated by a party’s success in business during the marriage.’

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter President, Thorpe LJ, Wilson LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 503, [2007] 1 FLR 1246

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Charman v Charman CA 20-Dec-2005
The court considered orders to third parties abroad to produce docments for use in ancillary relief proceedings. The husband had built up considerable assets within an offshore discretionary trust. The court was asked whether these were family . .
Appeal from – Charman v Charman (No 2) FD 27-Jul-2006
Ancillary relief claim – very substantial assets. The court provided for a possible substantial debt by a reverse contingent lump sum. . .
See Also – Charman v Charman CA 11-Dec-2006
Ancillary relief – substantial assets – application by the respondent wife in relation to an appeal by the appellant husband from a judgment and order in ancillary relief proceedings. The judge ordered the husband to pay pounds 40 million to the . .

Cited by:

Cited – B v B (Ancillary relief: Distribution of assets) CA 19-Mar-2008
The wife appealed an ancillary relief order for equal division on the basis that the judge had failed to allow for the fact that most of the assets had been brought to the marriage by her.
Held: Her appeal succeeded. All the assets at the . .
Cited – Vaughan v Vaughan CA 2-Nov-2007
H appealed an ancillary relief order giving certain extra rights in the family property on its sale.
Held: ‘the case demonstrates that, in an ancillary relief appeal, even the most conscientious appellate judge can fall into error if, having . .
Cited – Judge v Judge and others CA 19-Dec-2008
The wife appealed against an order refusing to set aside an earlier order for ancillary relief in her divorce proeedings, arguing that it had been made under a mistake. The sum available for division had had deducted an expected liabiliity to the . .
Cited – Radmacher (Formerly Granatino) v Granatino SC 20-Oct-2010
The parties, from Germany and France married and lived at first in England. They had signed a pre-nuptial agreement in Germany which would have been valid in either country of origin. H now appealed against a judgment which bound him to it, . .
Cited – S v AG (Financial Remedy: Lottery Prize) FD 14-Oct-2011
The court considered how to treat a lottery win of andpound;500,000 in the context of an ancillary relief application on a divorce.
Held: The answers in such cases must be fact specific. ‘In the application of the sharing principle (as opposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252522

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Baiai and others: CA 23 May 2007

The claimants challenged rules which meant that certain immigrants subject to immigration control were unable to marry, save only those marrying according to the rites of the Church of England.
Held: The rules were not justified by evidence that a sufficient number of sham marriages, or that the number of such marriages had any overall effect on the process of immigration control. To be proportionate any scheme would otherwise require an assessment of each case as it arose. The defendant’s appeal failed. It inhibited marriages on the ground of immigration status rather than on any reliable consideration of the genuineness of the marriage prohibited.

Judges:

Waller LJ, Buxton LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Jun-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 478, [2008] QB 143

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 12 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Baiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-Apr-2006
The respondent brought in laws restricting marriages between persons subject to immigration control, requiring those seeking non Church of England marriages to first obtain a certificate from the defendant that the marriage was approved. The . .
See Also – Baiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Admn 10-May-2006
The claimants had successfully brought judicial review of the defendant’s policies concluding that the defendant had unlawfully interfered with their right to family life by effectively preventing them marrying under the 2004 Act. They now sought . .
See Also – Baiai and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Jun-2006
The 2004 Act and Regulations operated to prevent the claimant marrying. He succeeded in challenging the regulations, and now sought damages. . .
Cited – A v United Kingdom ECHR 1982
The Commission considered a complaint where entry clearance was refused for the Philippine fiancee of a disabled man of limited means on the basis that she did not have the means to maintain and support herself without access to public funds.
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Cited – Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2001
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human . .
Cited – Netherlands ECHR 1985
(Commission ) The first applicant (a Moroccan) had come to the Netherlands and obtained a residence permit on the strength of a permanent relationship with a Dutch woman. That had failed, but he now wished to marry another Dutch national. The . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mahmood CA 8-Dec-2000
A Pakistani citizen entered the UK illegally and claimed asylum. A week before his claim was refused and he was served with removal directions, he married a British citizen of Pakistani origin. Two children were later born.
Held: Only . .
Cited – F v Switzerland ECHR 18-Dec-1987
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 12; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention . .
Cited – Sanders v France ECHR 1996
A male Turkish national and a female French national, living together in Istanbul, complained of delays in obtaining a certificate of capacity to marry under French law. The issue as to the obtaining of a certificate related to (alleged) concerns . .
Cited – Klip and Kruger v Netherlands ECHR 1997
The Commission heard a complaint that the parties’ article 12 rights were infringed because under Dutch Act on prevention and suppression of marriages of convenience, there had to be a systematic examination of all intended marriages involving . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Baiai and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 30-Jul-2008
In order to prevent marriages of convenience in the UK the Secretary of State introduced a scheme under which certain persons subject to immigration control required her written permission to marry and would not receive it unless they were present . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Family, Discrimination

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252507

Villiers v Villiers: SC 1 Jul 2020

Maintenance in England, divorce in Scotland

H disputed the right of W to seek maintenance before and English court, saying that the parties had mostly lived in Scotland, and the divorce was being conducted there.
Held: (Wilson, Hales LL dissenting) H’s appeal failed. The divorce and the maintenance action were distinct, and the European Regulations gave the England court jurisdiction.

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lady Black, Lord Sales

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 30, [2020] 2 FLR 917, [2020] 2 FCR 815, [2020] WLR(D) 391, [2021] 1 All ER 175

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 27, Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.652175

Butler v Butler: CA 5 Dec 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1116

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Butler v Butler CA 6-Mar-1997
In divorce proceedings, the issue of forum conveniens is decided by the balance of fairness including convenience. In the end the judge’s discretion is bounded by the statutory considerations which rest upon an evaluation of fairness to the parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.140983

Butler v Butler: CA 6 Mar 1997

In divorce proceedings, the issue of forum conveniens is decided by the balance of fairness including convenience. In the end the judge’s discretion is bounded by the statutory considerations which rest upon an evaluation of fairness to the parties rather than upon a comparison of the competing jurisdictions, save insofar as the comparison relates to convenience of witnesses, delay and expense.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Mar-1997, Times 06-Mar-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1049, [1998] 1 WLR 1208

Statutes:

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 9(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Butler v Butler CA 5-Dec-1996
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Otobo v Otobo; O v O (Appeal against Stay: Divorce Petition) CA 2-Jul-2002
The husband, a wealthy Nigerian had supported further traditional families outside the UK. The wife appealed a stay on her divorce petition. The husband argued that her habitual residence did not support jurisdiction. Agreed expert evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.78784

In re E (A Child): FC 19 Nov 2020

Application by the local authority for a care order with respect to a young girl, E, who has recently reached secondary school age.

Judges:

Hon Mrs Justice Judd

Citations:

[2020] EWFC 73

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.657306

Ryan-Cox v Cox: PC 27 Jun 2019

(From the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Lucia)) The appeal concerns provisions of the superseded Civil Code of 1879 which relate to dower and the effect of a contract of marriage on the ability of a husband to dispose of property by testamentary disposition.

Citations:

[2019] UKPC 32

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Family, Wills and Probate

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.639105

Williams v Williams: HL 27 Jun 1963

The House was asked whether an insane person can be held to have treated his wife (or her husband) with cruelty.

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Evershed, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, Lord Pearce

Citations:

[1963] UKHL 6, [1964] AC 598

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248553

Russell v Russell: HL 30 May 1924

The House was asked whether or not by the law of England evidence of non-access may, in proceedings for divorce, be tendered by a spouse and received by a Court with the object, or possible result, of bastardising a child of the marriage.
Held: It was not receivable.

Citations:

[1924] UKHL 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Children

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248474

Swindale v Forder: CA 31 Jan 2007

In ancillary relief proceedings, the matrimonial home had been transferred to the wife subject to a charge in favour of the husband’s partner not to be enforced until a certain date. That partner now sought the early sale of the property sayng that the court had also said this had been done to provide a home for the four children, but that those children now resided with the husband, and the order whould be amended under the slip rule.
Held: The judge had asked counsel to draft an order providing that ‘period of deferment will be for 10 years or until the wife remarries (or cohabits in circumstances akin to marriage) or the house is no longer required as a home.’ This did not say as a home for the children. The court at first instance had amended this to add ‘for the petitioner or her children or any of them.’ Other parts of the original judgment suggested that the order might extend only for so long as the house was required for the children. The order should now be amended to read that the charge should be postponed until the house was no longer required ‘as a home for the petitioner and at least one of the children’.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Wilson LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 29

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Barder v Caluori HL 2-Jan-1987
In divorce proceedings, the husband had transferred his interest in the matrimonial home to the wife who had been awarded care and control of the two children of the family. The order was made on 20 February 1985 and on 25 March the wife unlawfully . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248322

Parry v United Kingdom: ECHR 28 Nov 2006

Citations:

42971/05, [2006] ECHR 1157

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 5-Jul-2016
The court was asked about the age at which entitlement to a pension began for someone of transgender.
Held: The court was divided, and the issue was referred to the European Court of Justice. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Family

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248115

V v V: FD 20 May 2011

The court was asked as to its jurisdiction to hear a divorce petition under the Regulation Brussels II Revised.

Judges:

Peter Jackson J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1190 (Fam), [2011] 2 FLR 778

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces) FC 30-Sep-2014
The court considered applications to set aside some 180 petitions for divorce on the grounds that they appeared to be attempts to pervert the course of justice by wrongfully asserting residence in order to benefit from the UK jurisdiction.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.440084

N v F: FD 11 Mar 2011

The court was asked the ‘vexed’ question of how the court should, when exercising its powers to award ancillary relief, reflect, if at all, the property that H had brought into the marriage back in 1993.

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 586 (Fam), [2011] 2 FLR 533

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – S v AG (Financial Remedy: Lottery Prize) FD 14-Oct-2011
The court considered how to treat a lottery win of andpound;500,000 in the context of an ancillary relief application on a divorce.
Held: The answers in such cases must be fact specific. ‘In the application of the sharing principle (as opposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.431746

W v W: FD 3 Sep 2012

Application for ancillary financial relief on divorce, with the Crown Prosecution Service intervening.

Judges:

Ryder J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2469 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.471769

Kremen v Agrest (No 2): FD 3 Dec 2010

An application was made in ancillary relief case to set aside the transfer of a share in a company said to have been backdated to defeat the court’s jurisdiction.
Held: Mostyn J considered an There was a ‘strong practical reason why the cloak should be penetrable even absent a finding of wrongdoing.’

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3091 (Fam), [2011] 2 FLR 490, [2011] Fam Law 568

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kremen v Agrest FD 15-Oct-2010
Application as to payment of funds held where the payer was a fugitive from justice, owing sums in maintenance to the claimant. W applied for an order setting aside a charge granted by H over property. In previous hearing the court had found that H . .

Cited by:

See Also – Agrest and Another v Kremen CA 24-Jan-2011
Application for permission to appeal. . .
See Also – Kremen v Agrest CA 13-Apr-2011
. .
See Also – Kremen v Agrest CA 19-Oct-2011
. .
See Also – Kremen v Agrest (No11) FD 19-Jan-2012
Financial Remedy: Non-Disclosure: Post-Nuptial Agreement . .
See Also – Kremen v Agrest CA 5-Feb-2013
. .
Cited – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Company

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.430397

V v V (Ancillary relief: Power to order child maintenance): FD 6 Jun 2001

The parties had sought a child maintenance order form the court, but the husband resiled from his agreement.
Held: Where the court was unexpectedly blocked in this way, it had a power to make an order for payment by way of a lump sum of the difference to the wife for the benefit of the children. The court could not make a periodical payments order because no Segal order was available, nor was there any jurisdiction under the Act, since there was neither a subsisting order nor written agreement for variation. This was not an attempt to remedy perceived deficiencies in the Act, and the court had to look to its obligation to consider the children’s welfare. The provisions may be used for maintenance purposes if the child support machinery has not been invoked. Parents can, in effect, avoid the intervention of the Child Support Agency by agreeing a nominal sum in periodical payments at the outset and then returning to court for it to be varied.

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

Times 16-Aug-2001, [2001] 2 FLR 799

Statutes:

Child Support Act 1991, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 23(1)(f) 25(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Segal 1993
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Kehoe, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 14-Jul-2005
The applicant contended that the 1991 Act infringed her human rights in denying her access to court to obtain maintenance for her children.
Held: The applicant had no substantive right to take part in the enforcement process in domestic law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support, Family

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.159485

TJ v CV and Another: FD 9 Aug 2007

The court was asked ‘What is the proper place of the biological father in a same-sex female family intended to be self sufficient?’ The two mothers were civil partners, and the child had been conceived through the fatherhood of the applicant. He accepted that the mothers should care for the child as a family, but asked that he should have contact.
Held: There is no normative pattern for contact in such cases, and each must be treated within its own factual matrix. There should be contact in this case four times a year under supervision.

Judges:

Hedley J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1952 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Children

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.267152

M v W: FD 2 Apr 2014

H’s application to set aside permission to W to commence application for financial provision on divorce although neither party was resident within the UK.

Judges:

Coleridge J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 925 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.523793

Sears Tooth (A Firm) v Payne Hicks Beach (A Firm) and Others: FD 24 Jan 1997

An agreement to deduct legal costs of proceedings from a divorce award was not champertous or unlawful.

Citations:

Gazette 05-Feb-1997, Times 24-Jan-1997, [1997] 2 FLR 116

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wyatt v Vince SC 11-Mar-2015
Long delayed ancillary relief application proceeds
The parties had divorced some 22 years before, but no ancillary relief order had been made to satisfy the application outlined in the petition. The parties when together had lived in relative poverty, but H had subsequently become wealthy. W applied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs, Family

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.89083

Migliaccio v Migliaccio: FD 26 Apr 2016

Wife’s application for a judgment summons against the husband in respect of pounds 2,200 of arrears of child periodical payments and pounds 5,500 in respect of an unpaid costs order.

Judges:

Mr Justice Mostyn

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1055 (Fam), [2016] WLR(D) 245, [2016] 4 WLR 90

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.564180

T v T (Interception of Documents): FD 5 Aug 1994

W feared that the H would seek to understate the true extent of his resources to the court and so she engaged in a number of activities, including opening and taking letters addressed to him and breaking into his office, with the intention of gathering documentation to enable her to ascertain H’s true financial position. She had disclosed some but not all of the copies she retained.
Held: The fact was to be taken account of in costs order but not to be relied upon as behaviour affecting her entitlements. The wife was wrong to open her Husband’s post looking for evidence in ancillary proceedings, but can copy documents. The wife correctly anticipated H’s failure to disclose his true financial position, and it was ‘reasonable’ to take such photocopies as she could obtain without the use of force and to scour the dustbin. But it was ‘unacceptable’ and ‘reprehensible’ to use force, interception of mail and retention of original documents. Even so, he declined to regard that behaviour as relevant to the amount of the award although it would be relevant to costs.
Wilson J said: ‘The first question, which is not straightforward, is to what extent the wife’s activities in relation to documents were reprehensible. The fact is that the husband had not made a full and frank presentation to the court of his financial resources and that a few of the documents taken by the wife (like the diaries, scrutinised by her and then called for) have enabled this to be made clear. The wife anticipated – and I find that she reasonably anticipated – at the outset of the litigation that the husband would seek to reduce the level of her reward by understating his resources in breach of his duty to the court. On balance, I consider that in those circumstances it was reasonable for the wife to take photocopies of such of the husband’s documents as she could locate without the use of force and, for that matter, to scour the dustbins. But the wife went far beyond that. She (a) used force to obtain documents; (b) intercepted the husband’s mail; and (c) kept original documents.’
Wilson J continued to ask: ‘whether the reprehensible activities of the wife in relation to documents amount to relevant ‘conduct’ or to a relevant ‘circumstance’ within the subsection. I appreciate that it has been held that a spouse’s behaviour in the ancillary litigation, specifically a dishonest failure to make full disclosure, amounts to such conduct a dishonest disclosure will more appropriately be reflected in the inference that the resources are larger than have been disclosed (in which case it will fall within s. 25(2)(a)) and/or in the order for costs; indeed that is how I intend to approach the husband’s disclosure in this case. I am also firmly of the view that the wife’s activity in relation to documents should not be brought into my reckoning of the substantive award, whether as conduct or a circumstance, but should prima facie have some relevance in respect of costs. The extent of their relevance will depend on the potency of other factors. Although the wife’s activities may not have caused significant increase in the costs, the court’s discretion is wife enough to permit their inclusion in its survey of the litigation.’

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-Aug-1994, Times 05-Aug-1994, [1994] 2 FLR 1083

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hildebrand v Hildebrand 1992
The parties in ancillary relief proceedings sought orders for discovery. H had been to the wife’s flat surreptitiously on five occasions, and taken photocopies of so many documents obtained by him in the course of those visits (but returned after . .

Cited by:

Cited – L v L and Hughes Fowler Carruthers QBD 1-Feb-2007
The parties were engaged in ancillary relief proceedings. The Husband complained that the wife had sought to use unlawfully obtained information, and in these proceedings sought delivery up of the material from the wife and her solicitors. He said . .
Cited – White v Withers Llp and Dearle CA 27-Oct-2009
The claimant was involved in matrimonial ancillary relief proceedings. His wife was advised by the defendants, her solicitors, to remove his private papers. The claimant now sought permission to appeal against a strike out of his claim against the . .
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.89682

Regina v R (Inland Revenue: Tax Evasion): FD 1 Jul 1998

The court declined to order the return by the Inland Revenue of documents disclosed to it regarding a husband’s failure to disclose income, where the disclosure was recent and tax payable could affected the order. The wife’s wrongful behaviour in maing the disclosure was to be reflected in court order.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Jul-1998, [1998] 1 FLR 922

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Churchhouse, Regina (on the Application of) v Inland Revenue Admn 4-Apr-2003
The taxpayer was a revenue informer one whose trade is described by Coke as ‘viperous vermin [who] under the reverend mantle of law and justice instituted for protection of the innocent, and the good of the Commonwealth, did vexe and depauperize the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Taxes Management

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.88590

Shipman v Shipman: FD 1991

W sought an order under s37 of the 1973 Act restraining H in divorce proceedings from disposing of or dealing with 300,000 pounds, or one half of his severance pay, whichever was the greater, pending determination of the ancillary relief proceedings.
Held: The terms of s37 had not been satisfied. But, relying on Roche, it was wrong to believe that ‘there is no longer any inherent jurisdiction to freeze assets which may be put beyond the reach of the applicant.’ Lincoln J further held: ‘Counsel for the husband urges me to have regard to the many restrictions and safeguards surrounding the use of worldwide Mareva injunctions, and to assimilate the use of, and procedure for, injunctions in the Family Division to those in commercial Law. In my view the matrimonial field calls for a different approach. To my mind the circumstances here call for the injunction to continue. If it were discharged, the husband could well change his intentions, however genuine and well-disposed to the wife his present state of mind may be. Both he and the assets are out of the jurisdiction. Left without a job, and with new responsibilities, he will be faced with a temptation to eat into the whole of the fund.’

Judges:

Lincoln J

Citations:

[1991] 1 FLR 250

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Roche v Roche CA 1981
. .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Johnstone HL 13-Mar-1997
A possession action was lawful against a remaining joint tenant after a notice to terminate the tenancy had been given by the other tenant. An order against interference with possession of property did not extend to matters of the duration of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.564373

Morgan v Hill: CA 28 Nov 2006

The father appealed an award of periodical payments to a former partner. She had a child by an earlier relationship. The father was immensely rich and during the relationship made financial provision for the child by the earlier relationship also. The order now appealed continued that. The father said that the court had wrongly interfered with an earlier agreement between the parties for provision.
Held: It was in practice difficult to separate out elements of the benefits of the orders made to differentiate between the two children, but the court could not override the principle which was that he was not responsible to maintain the first child, and the court could not make an order for her benefit. Order adjusted accordingly.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Hughes

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1602, Times 08-Dec-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 855, [2007] 1 FLR 1480

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Edgar v Edgar CA 23-Jul-1980
H and W separated and in 1976, without any pressure H and at the instigation of W, signed a deed of separation negotiated through solicitors. H agreed to purchase a house for W, to confer on her capital benefits worth approximately andpound;100,000, . .
Cited – Camm v Camm CA 1982
Ancillary relief was claimed in the face of the terms of a separation agreement.
Held: If asked to look at an ancillary relief settlement agreed between the parties, the court could do so where the original provision was inadequate. Here, the . .
Cited – In re P (Child: Financial Provision) CA 24-Jun-2003
The court considered the amount of an allowance to be provided to a parent which would, on divorce, take care of a child of the family in a moderate to high income case.
Held: The carer would not themselves be entitled to an allowance . .
Cited – J v C (Child’s Financial Provision) 1999
The court explained the absence from the check list in the section of any mention of the welfare of a child of the family. . .
Cited – A v A (a minor; financial provision) 1994
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Radmacher v Granatino CA 2-Jul-2009
Husband and wife, neither English, had married in England. Beforehand they had signed a prenuptial agreement in Germany agreeing that neither should claim against the other on divorce. The wife appealed against an order to pay a lump sum to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support, Family

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246703

Currey v Currey: CA 18 Oct 2006

Where one party in an ancillary relief claim was not entitled to legal aid, but showed a need for legal representation which he or she could not afford, the court could make an order requiring the other party to make a costs allowance. The nature of the husband’s application here was defensive, and the order should remain, though: ‘Whenever a court decided to make a costs allowance, it ought to proceed with a judicious mixture of realism and caution as to both its amount and duration.’
Wilson LJ referred to the danger that a decision-maker’s attempt to explain his decision in terms which include reference to exceptionality would give rise to the subsequent elevation of a concept of exceptionality as the governing criterion: ‘In my view the initial, overarching inquiry is into whether the applicant for a costs allowance can demonstrate that she cannot reasonably procure legal advice and representation by any other means. Thus, to the extent that she has assets, the applicant has to demonstrate that they cannot reasonably be deployed, whether directly or as the means of raising a loan, in funding legal services. Furthermore . . she has also to demonstrate that she cannot reasonably procure legal services by the offer of a charge upon ultimate capital recovery.’
As regards the request for a costs allowance: ‘In my view the initial, overarching inquiry is into whether the applicant for a costs allowance can demonstrate that she cannot reasonably procure legal advice and representation by any other means. Thus, to the extent that she has assets, the applicant has to demonstrate that they cannot reasonably be deployed, whether directly or as the means of raising a loan, in funding legal services. Furthermore . . she has also to demonstrate that she cannot reasonably procure legal services by the offer of a charge upon ultimate capital recovery.’

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Wilson LJ, Lindsay J

Citations:

Times 03-Nov-2006, [2007] Fam Law 12, [2007] 2 Costs LR 227, [2007] 1 FLR 946, [2006] EWCA Civ 1338

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Currey v Currey CA 8-Dec-2003
Appeals against ancillary relief orders and costs orders. The husband complained that the judge had in effect taken over the case asking leading questions of the parties.
Held: The judge’s task in a family matter was to obtain an accurate . .
Cited – Barder v Caluori HL 2-Jan-1987
In divorce proceedings, the husband had transferred his interest in the matrimonial home to the wife who had been awarded care and control of the two children of the family. The order was made on 20 February 1985 and on 25 March the wife unlawfully . .
Cited – A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Payment of Legal Fees) FD 2001
The court made an order to provide that the monies paid by way of maintenance pending suit in respect of any matter can be brought into account by the judge making the order in the ancillary relief proceedings. . .

Cited by:

Cited – In re F (Children) CA 27-Oct-2010
The mother appealed against refusal of a specific issue order requested to allow her to remove the four children with her from Cleveland to Stronsay in the Orkneys. Both parents were GPs and accepted to be excellent parents. She and her new partner . .
Cited – Rubin v Rubin FD 10-Mar-2014
The court heard an application by the wife for a legal services payment order. . .
Cited – Wyatt v Vince SC 11-Mar-2015
Long delayed ancillary relief application proceeds
The parties had divorced some 22 years before, but no ancillary relief order had been made to satisfy the application outlined in the petition. The parties when together had lived in relative poverty, but H had subsequently become wealthy. W applied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Costs

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246714

B v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2001

The provisions of rule 4.16(7) providing for confidentiality in children proceedings were Convention compliant: ‘such proceedings are prime examples of cases where the exclusion of the press and public may be justified in order to protect the privacy of the child and parties and to avoid prejudicing the interests of justice. To enable the deciding judge to gain as full and accurate a picture as possible of the advantages and disadvantages of the various residence and contact options open to the child, it is essential that the parents and other witnesses feel able to express themselves candidly on highly personal issues without fear of public curiosity or comment.’ but
‘The applicants submit that the presumption in favour of a private hearing in cases under the Children Act should be reversed. However, while the court agrees that article 6(1) states a general rule that civil proceedings, inter alia, should take place in public, it does not find it inconsistent with this provision for a state to designate an entire class of case as an exception to the general rule where considered necessary for the interests of morals, public order or national security or where required by the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties, although the need for such a measure must always be subject to the court’s control. The English procedural law can therefore be seen as a specific reflection of the general exceptions provided for by article 6(1).
Furthermore, the English tribunals have a discretion to hold Children Act proceedings in public if merited by the special features of the case, and the judge must consider whether or not to exercise his or her discretion in this respect if requested by one of the parties. Turning to the facts before it, the Court notes that . . the judges at first instance and on appeal gave careful consideration and detailed explanations of their reasons for holding that the proceedings should continue in chambers.’
Judge Sir Nicholas Bratza said: ‘As to the complaint concerning the holding of the proceedings in camera, I fully share the reasoning of the majority, the decisive point in my view being that in both cases the county court judge exercised his independent discretion to exclude the public from the substantive hearing in the interests of the children concerned.’
Residence and contact proceedings are prime examples of cases where the exclusion of the press and public may be justified in order to protect the privacy of the child and/ or the parties and to avoid prejudicing the interests of justice. ‘To enable the deciding Judge to gain as full and accurate a picture as possible of the advantages and disadvantages of various residences and contact options open to the child, it is essential that the parents and other witnesses feel able to express themselves candidly on highly personal issues without fear of public curiosity or comment . . does not find it inconsistent with this provision for a State to designate an entire class of case as an exception to the general rule . . where required by the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties, although the need for such a measure must always be subject to the Court’s control. The English procedural law can therefore be seen as a specific reflection of the general exceptions provided for by Article 6(1).’

Judges:

Judge Sir Nicholas Bratza

Citations:

[2001] 2 FLR 261, 35974/97, [2001] ECHR 298, 36337/97, [2001] 2 FCR 221, (2002) 34 EHRR 19, [2001] Fam Law 506, 11 BHRC 667

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Family Proceedings Rules 1991 4.16(7), European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Norfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 1-Nov-2006
The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified.
Held: A judge . .
Cited – Child X (Residence and Contact- Rights of Media Attendance) (Rev 2) FD 14-Jul-2009
The father applied to the court to have the media excluded from the hearing into the residence and contact claims relating to his daughter.
Held: It was for the party seeking such an order to justify it. In deciding whether or not to exclude . .
Cited – A v Independent News and Media Ltd and Others CA 31-Mar-2010
The newspapers sought leave to report proceedings before the Court of Protection in connection with a patient unable to manage his own affairs. The patient retained a possible capacity to work as a professional musician. The family wanted the . .
Cited – Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo CA 19-Nov-2010
The court was asked as to how a Family Division judge might decide whether or not to publish an ancillary relief judgment at the conclusion of a trial during which one of the parties conspired to present a perjured case. H and family members had . .
Cited – Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Haigh FD 22-Aug-2011
The Council sought to have certain aspects of a care application put into the public domain which would normally have remained private. Application was also made (by the father and the child) for an order restricting the right of the mother to make . .
Cited – MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust and Others CA 17-Feb-2015
Application was made for approval of a compromise of a claim for damages for personal injury for the child. The court now considered whether an order should be made to protect the identity of the six year old claimant.
Held: An order should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Human Rights, Children, Media

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245940

LD (Article 14; Same-Sex Relationships) Brazil: IAT 10 Sep 2006

Prior to the coming into force of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, it was not a breach of art 14 of the ECHR amounting to unlawful discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation to refuse to grant leave to a person in a same-sex relationship who could not satisfy the requirements of the Immigration Rules in circumstances where a party to a marriage would be granted leave under the Rules. The differential treatment was, at that time, objectively justified. (N.B. Because of the provisions of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 this is an example of the rare case where leave to remain is an essential requirement for the development of family life under art 8.)

Judges:

Chalkley, Grubb, Spencer SIJJ

Citations:

[2006] UKIAT 00075

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Partnership Act 2004, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Family, Human Rights

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245502

Burrows v Burrows: FD 24 Mar 1999

An award was made for the husband to pay 50% of maximum lump sum and periodical payments of half pension income and other payments. This reflected the wife’s contribution through the marriage, allowing the husband to build his business.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Mar-1999

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25B 25C 25D

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.78762

Pelling v Bruce-Williams: CA 25 Jul 2006

Application to discharge injunction – court considering it spent.

Judges:

Wall LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1046

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Pelling v Bruce-Williams, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought an order that his application for a joint residence order should be held in public.
Held: Though there was some attractiveness in the applicant’s arguments, the issue had been fully canvassed by the ECHR. The time had come . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243402

Szechter (orse Karsov) v Szechter: 1971

The parties, who had been given leave to stay in the United Kingdom for only a limited period, had acquired a domicile of choice in England by residing here with the intention of making this country their permanent home. It was immaterial that their intentions were liable to be frustrated by the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to permission for their continued residence here.
As to the necessary element of consent to a marriage. Sir Jocelyn Simon P said: ‘It is, in my view, insufficient to invalidate an otherwise good marraige that a party has entered into it in order to escape from a disagreeable situation, such as penury or social degradation. In order for the impediment of duress to vitiate an otherwise valid marriage, it must, in my judgment, be proved that the will of one of the parties thereto has been overborne by genuine and reasonably held fear caused by threat of immediate danger (for which the party is not himself responsible), to life, limb or liberty, so that the constraint destroys the reality of consent to ordinary wedlock. I think that in the instant ease that test is satisfied.’
Karminski J said: ‘In order for the impediment of duress to vitiate an otherwise valid marriage, it must, in my judgment, be proved that the will of one of the parties thereto has been overborne by genuine and reasonably held fear caused by threat of immediate danger (for which the party is not himself responsible), to life, limb or liberty, so that the constraint destroys the reality of consent to ordinary wedlock.’

Judges:

Sir Jocelyn Simon P, Karminski J

Citations:

[1971] P 286, [1971] 1 WLR 171

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Cruh v Cruh 1945
A man of Austrian or German origin had been recommended for deportation following a conviction for conspiracy. The Home Secretary intended to deport him as soon as it became practicable to do so.
Held: Until the recommendation was actually . .
Cited – Boldrini v Boldrini and Martini CA 1932
An alien may acquire a domicile of choice in this country even though he might be required to leave at any time by executive action with no right of appeal.
Lawrence LJ said: ‘What had to be shown is that when the petitioner presented his . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mark v Mark HL 30-Jun-2005
The petitioner sought to divorce her husband. Both were Nigerian nationals, and had married under a valid polygamous marriage in Nigeria. She claimed that the courts had jurisdiction because of her habitual residence here despite the fact that her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Administrative

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.228180

In re King’s Trust: 1892

Lord Porter said it was ‘little short of disgraceful to our jurisprudence’ that in reference to a rule professedly founded on public policy there should be a distinction between a gift of an annuity for life coupled with a proviso for cessation if the donee married (treated as giving a life interest) and a gift until he marries (treated as giving an interest only until marriage).

Judges:

Lord Porter MR

Citations:

(1892) 29 LR Ir 401

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
Complex financial instruments insured the indebtedness of Lehman Brothers. On that company’s insolvency a claim was made. It was said that provisions in the documents offended the rule against the anti-deprivation rule. The courts below had upheld . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Trusts

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.442617

Bazeley v Forder: 1868

A wife’s agency of necessity for her husband extended to cover necessities for the children.

Citations:

(1868) LR 3 QB 559

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Kehoe CA 5-Mar-2004
The claimant had applied to the Child Support Agncy for maintenance. They failed utterly to obtain payment, and she complained now that she was denied the opportunity by the 1991 Act to take court proceedings herself.
Held: The denial of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.194387

Goodchild v Goodchild: ChD 13 Dec 1995

The husband and wife had made mirror wills. They divorced, and the husband made a new will. After his death, the child and the third wife of the deceased made a claim against the second wife.
Held: The wills were in identical terms, but nevertheless, fell short of having full and explicit status as mutual wills. Even so they could still create a trust, with a like result. The court granted an order under section 2 of the 1975 Act on the ground that wife’s mistaken belief that the terms of the wills were mutually binding imposed a moral obligation on the deceased. That constituted a special circumstance which exceptionally justified a claim by the son under the Act of 1975. ‘It is also clear from Birmingham v Renfrew . . that these cases of mutual wills are only one example of a wider category of cases, for example secret trusts, in which a court of equity will intervene to impose a constructive trust . . The principle of all these cases is that a court of equity will not permit a person to whom property is transferred by way of gift, but on the faith of an agreement or clear understanding that it is to be dealt with in a particular way for the benefit of a third person, to deal with that property inconsistently with that agreement or understanding.’ and ‘the agreement or understanding must be such as to impose on the donee a legally binding obligation to deal with the property in the particular way and that the other two certainties, namely, those as to the subject matter of the trust and the persons intended to benefit under it, are as essential to this species of trust as they are to any other.’

Judges:

Carnwath J

Citations:

Times 22-Dec-1995, Ind Summary 08-Jan-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 694

Statutes:

Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Wills Act 1837 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Goodchild and Another v Goodchild CA 2-May-1997
The deceased and his wife made wills in virtually identical form. The husband changed his will after their divorce, but his son and other wife claimed that the couple had intended the wills to be part of a larger arrangement of their affairs, . .
Cited – Birmingham v Renfrew 11-Jun-1937
(High Court of Australia) Cases of mutual wills are only one example of a wider category of cases, for example secret trusts, in which a court of equity will intervene to impose a constructive trust. Latham CJ described a mutual will arrangement as . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Goodchild and Another v Goodchild CA 2-May-1997
The deceased and his wife made wills in virtually identical form. The husband changed his will after their divorce, but his son and other wife claimed that the couple had intended the wills to be part of a larger arrangement of their affairs, . .
Cited – Walters v Olins CA 4-Jul-2008
The claimant appealed against a finding that he had entered into a mutual will contract with the deceased.
Held: It is a legally necessary condition of mutual wills that there is clear and satisfactory evidence of a contract between two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Family

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.80910

Wilkinson v Kitzinger and Another: FD 12 Apr 2006

The petitioner intended to seek a declaration as to her marital status. She and the respondent had married in a civil ceremony in British Columbia in 2003. She sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to section 11(3) of the 1973 Act so far as it failed to recognise same sex marriages. She now sought a protective costs order.
Held: The present proceedings sought to establish a matter of public law. There was little chance of section 11(3) of the 1973 Act being read down, but the case was not unarguable. Applying the Corner House case principles, there was a matter or proper and considerable public interest. The petitioner did however have a private interest in the issues. Although a protective costs order was not made, the court made an order limiting the amount of costs which the Lord Chancellor’s representatives might claim.

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter P

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 835 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Family Law Act 1986 55, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 11(c), Civil Partnership Act 2004, European Convention on Human Rights 88, Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Smith and Grady v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
Cited – Bellinger v Bellinger HL 10-Apr-2003
Transgender Male to Female not to marry as Female
The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but Mrs B had previously undergone gender re-assignment surgery. Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act required a marriage to be between a male and a female. It was argued that the section was incompatible . .
Cited – S L v Austria ECHR 9-Jan-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 14+8 ; Not necessary to examine Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited – Goodwin v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jul-2002
The claimant was a post operative male to female trans-sexual. She claimed that her human rights were infringed when she was still treated as a man for National Insurance contributions purposes, where she continued to make payments after the age at . .
Cited – Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v Portugal ECHR 1-Dec-1998
A homosexual claimed that an award of custody of his daughter to her mother was an unjustified interference with his right to respect for family life, and also with his right to respect for his private life since he was required in respect of his . .
Cited – Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta v Portugal ECHR 21-Dec-1999
There was a difference in treatment between the applicant and a comparator based on the applicant’s sexual orientation, a concept which is undoubtedly covered by Article 14. The list set out in this provision is of an indicative nature and is not . .
Cited – Regina v Lord Chancellor’s Department ex parte Child Poverty Action Group Admn 6-Feb-1998
The claimant sought an order with regard to its costs in an anticipated application to the court. The application was refused. Requests in a public interest action for an advance order for costs could only be awarded in very exceptional . .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta v Portugal ECHR 21-Dec-1999
There was a difference in treatment between the applicant and a comparator based on the applicant’s sexual orientation, a concept which is undoubtedly covered by Article 14. The list set out in this provision is of an indicative nature and is not . .
Cited – Johnston and Others v Ireland ECHR 18-Dec-1986
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage . .
Cited – B And L v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Sep-2005
The claimants said that UK law was inconsistent in its treatment of marriage between in-laws, since it provided that it was available only by means of a private Act of parliament.
Held: The provision was irrational and infringed the human . .
Cited – Frette v France ECHR 26-Feb-2002
A single homosexual man complained that the respondent state had made it impossible for him to adopt a child.
Held: The claim was within the ambit of article 8 as regards respect for family life, but the court dismissed the claim under article . .

Cited by:

See Also – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Human Rights, Costs

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240373

Sanders v France: ECHR 1996

A male Turkish national and a female French national, living together in Istanbul, complained of delays in obtaining a certificate of capacity to marry under French law. The issue as to the obtaining of a certificate related to (alleged) concerns about the prospective wife’s mental capacity to marry, under section 175 of the French Civil Code.
Held: ‘The Commission notes that, in the present case, the issue concerns substantive rules, the purpose of which is, inter alia, to preclude marriages of convenience between French citizens and aliens. It does not find this limitation, in itself, to be contrary to Article 12 of the Convention.’

Citations:

31401/96, (1996) 87 B-DR 160, [1996] ECHR 99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 12

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Baiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-Apr-2006
The respondent brought in laws restricting marriages between persons subject to immigration control, requiring those seeking non Church of England marriages to first obtain a certificate from the defendant that the marriage was approved. The . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Baiai and others CA 23-May-2007
The claimants challenged rules which meant that certain immigrants subject to immigration control were unable to marry, save only those marrying according to the rites of the Church of England.
Held: The rules were not justified by evidence . .
Cited – Baiai and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 30-Jul-2008
In order to prevent marriages of convenience in the UK the Secretary of State introduced a scheme under which certain persons subject to immigration control required her written permission to marry and would not receive it unless they were present . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Family

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240352

Karas and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 7 Apr 2006

Both claimants sought asylum. Their claims were rejected. They had made representations that they had ‘fresh claims’ in 2001, 2003 and March 2004 but on 10 October 2004, the Secretary of State gave instructions to an airline that the claimants were to be removed at 7.40 am on 12 October 2004. The claimants were not informed until 8.30 pm on 11 October 2004 when they were arrested but they were able to prevent removal. The court criticised the respondent’s practice.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 747 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .

Cited by:

Cited – Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 26-Jul-2010
The claimant, a charity assisting immigrants and asylum seekers, challenged a policy document regulating the access to the court of failed applicants facing removal. They said that the new policy, reducing the opportunity to appeal to 72 hours or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Family

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240339

Abbassi v Abbassi and Another: CA 7 Mar 2006

The former husband sought recognition of a divorce by Talak. The husband said that it had been granted. The wife denied it and complained that if it was upheld she would be found to have been cohabiting outside of marriage.
Held: The proper thing to do was to make use of the facilities for liaison with the family courts of Pakistan.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 355

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Family Law Act 1986 55(1)(D)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240094

Rundell v Rundell: CA 14 Dec 2005

The former husband appealed an order for his committal to prison on a judgment summons in default of clearing arrears of maintenance payments. He said that the proceedings were criminal in nature and offended his rights to a fair trial under the Convention, in that evidence had been taken at less than criminal standards.
Held: The article 6 rights ‘are, of course, important rights, but they are not to be elevated so as to subvert the enforcement process upon which the judgment creditor is entitled to rely. ‘ The appeal failed: ‘The overwhelming reality is that an obligation was established by a consent order which remains on foot. There has been no subsequent application for its downward variation. The amount of the arrears that have accrued is not in issue.’

Judges:

Thorpe, Richards LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1764

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mubarak v Mubarak CA 2001
A judgment summons, issued was issued by the wife to enforce a lump sum order made against her husband in their divorce proceedings. The judge had performed his statutory duty which included having to satisfy himself under s. 25 of the 1973 Act of . .
Cited – Ellis v Ellis CA 24-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed a suspended committal order in respect of his failure to pay maintenance. The husband had unilaterally reduced payments at the same time as withdrawing his application to vary the order.
Held: The defendant simply piled . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Contempt of Court, Human Rights

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239232

Stead v Stead: 1985

The court declined to award a widow a large capital sum from her husband’s estate.

Citations:

[1985] FLR 16

Statutes:

Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Elizabeth Adams v Julian James Lewis (Administrator of the Estate of Frank Adams dec) ChD 26-Jan-2001
The widow’s claim under the Act was contested by three daughters where the widow received a specific legacy and the will gave trustees a power to apply any part of the residue during the lifetime of the widow to provide and maintain a suitable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Wills and Probate

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.213641